HILL. 30] 



TOTEM 



789 



agency of sorcery,' than with any form 

 of the personal tutelary. This patron 

 spirit of course concerns the group re- 

 garded as a body, for with regard to each 

 person of the group, the clan or gentile 

 guardian is inheritecl, or rather acquired, 

 by birth, and it may not be changed at 

 will. On the otiier hand, the personal 

 tutelary is obtained through the rite of 

 vision in a dream or a trance, and it 

 must be preserved at all hazards as one 

 of the most precious possessions. The 

 fetish is acquired by personal choice, by 

 purchase, or by inheritance, or from some 

 chance t-ircumstance or emergency, and 

 it can be sold or discarded at the will of 

 the possessor, in most cases; the excep- 

 tion is where a jjerson has entered into a 

 compact with some evil spirit or being 

 that, in consideration of human or other 

 sacrifices in its hon r at stated periods, 

 the said spirit undertakes toijerform cer- 

 tain obligations to this man or woman, 

 and in default of which the person for- 

 feits his right to live. 



"Totemism" is a purely philosophical 

 term which modern anthropologic litera- 

 ture has l)urdened with a great mass of 

 needless controNcrsial speculation and 

 opinion . The doctrine and use of tutelary 

 or patron guardian spirits by individuals 

 and by organized bodies of persons were 

 defined by Powell as "a method of nam- 

 ing," and as " the doctrine and system of 

 naming." But the motive underlying 

 the acquisition and use of guardian or 

 tutelary spirits, whether by an individual 

 or by an organized body of persons, is 

 always the same, namely, to obtain wel- 

 fare and to avoid ill-fare. So it appears 

 to be erroneous to define this cult as "the 

 doctrine and system of naming." It is 

 rather the recognition, exploitation, and 

 adjustment of the imaginary mystic rela- 

 tions of the individual or of the body of 

 organized persons to the postulated oreii- 

 das (q. v.), mystic powers, surrounding 

 each of these units of native society. 

 With but few exceptions, the recognized 

 relation between the clan or gens and its 

 patrondeity is not one of descent or source, 

 but rather that of protection, guardian- 

 ship, and support. The relationship as to 

 source between these two classes of supe- 

 rior beings is not yet determined; so to 

 avoid confusion in concepts, it is better to 

 use distinctive names for them, until their 

 connection, if any, has been definitely 

 ascertained: this question must not be 

 prejudged. The hypothetic inclusion of 

 these several classes in a general one, 

 branded with the rubric "totem " or its 

 equivalent, has led to needless confusion. 

 The native tongues have separate names 

 for these objects, and until the native 

 classification can be truthfully shown to be 

 erroneous, it would seem to be advisable 

 to designate them by distinctive names. 



Notwithstanding the great amount of 

 study of the literature of the social fea- 

 tures of aboriginal American society, there 

 are many data relative to this subject that 

 have been overlooked or disregarded. 



Long (Voy. and Trav., 86-87, 1791), a 

 trader among the Chippewa in the latter 

 half of the 18th century, wrote: "One 

 part of the religious superstition of the 

 Savages, consists in each of them having 

 his totain, or favourite spirit, which he be- 

 lieves watches over him. This tolcuit they 

 conceive assumes the shape of some beast 

 or other, and therefore they never kill, 

 hunt, or eat the animal whose form they 

 think this <oto;/i bears." Headds: "This 

 idea of destiny, or, if I may be allowed 

 the phrase, ^ totainism,'' how(^vev strange, 

 is not confined to the Savages." From 

 this misleading and confused statement 

 have the words totam and its derivative 

 totamism, slightly changed in spelling, 

 been introduced into literature. In this 

 crude statement Long described the per- 

 sonal tutelary, but gave it the name sig- 

 nifying 'clan kinship.' He or his inter- 

 preter was evidently led into this error 

 by the custom of distinguishing a particu- 

 lar clan from others, when speaking of 

 them, by the class name or cognomen of 

 its patron or tutelary ; it was due to faulty 

 diction, for it is not probable that the 

 Chippewa and their related tribes would 

 have an object, believed to shape the 

 course of human life, which had no dis- 

 tinctive name. Such a name is recorded 

 by the eminent German traveler. Kohl, 

 who was among the Chippewa and 

 neighboring tribes in 1855. He said 

 (Kitchi-Gami, 58, 1860) that these In- 

 dians deify natural strength and ter- 

 restrial objects; that nearly every Indian 

 had discovered such an object, in which 

 special confidence is placed by him, and 

 to which he more frequently directs his 

 thoughts and to which he more zealously 

 sacrifices, than to any other being; that 

 the Chippewa proper name for these ob- 

 jects is nigouiiiies, which signifies 'my 

 hope,' approximately; that one calls a 

 tree, another a stone or rock, 'his hope.' 

 The rendering 'my hope' is probably 

 only an approximate expression of the 

 native concept embodied in the term, the 

 derivation of which is not definitely 

 known. It may possibly be related to 

 the Chippewa nagamun, 'song, chant,' 

 and to the Cree nigamoheu', ' to teach the 

 knowledge of medicines by chanting.' 

 But nitjouimes is the Chippewa name of 

 the personal tutelary, whatever may be 

 its etymologic derivation. 



Owing to misapprehension of externals 

 and therefore to misinterpretation of 

 them in the vast Ijody of literature on 

 the significance of imaginary patrons or 

 tutelariea of persons and of organiza- 

 tions of persons, totem has come to signify 



